City of Vancouver formally declares city is on unceded Aboriginal territory


Cliffy
#1
“Underlying all other truths spoken during the Year of Reconciliation is the truth that the modern city of Vancouver was founded on the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations and that these territories were never ceded through treaty, war or surrender,” reads part of the motion from the city.

City of Vancouver formally declares city is on unceded Aboriginal territory - BC | Globalnews.ca (external - login to view)

This is true of most of BC. Time the provincial government did the same thing.
 
captain morgan
#2
What does this mean, specifically that it was not ceded through treaty, war or surrender?

Almost sounds like it was abandoned
 
Cliffy
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

What does this mean, specifically that it was not ceded through treaty, war or surrender?

Almost sounds like it was abandoned

No, it was stolen.
 
captain morgan
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

No, it was stolen.

Is that what the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh First Nations said?... Why didn't the article indicate that the land was stolen?.. Did YVR city council declare that they stole the land?

Like I said, sounds to me like it was abandoned
 
B00Mer
+1
#5
So let's just give all of BC back to the Indians.. duh.

The PC's are killing the future of Canada with their self-righteous Bull Sh*t!!

It is what it is... let dead dogs stay buried.
 
captain morgan
#6
Why would you?.... They walked away from it, hell, there is the question of who they displaced when they 'claimed' that land
 
taxslave
#7
Just more blaterering from mayor moonbeam. How about his property on Cortez Island? Was that won in a war or given to him by the proper owners?
 
petros
+1
#8
Seller's remorse?

They sold it HBC who sold it to Canada.

Dumbasses.
 
Corduroy
+2
#9  Top Rated Post
As if it would have made a difference if there was a treaty. The government doesn't respect treaties. It's basically the same thing: unceded territory, ceded territory, treaty territory. The government will do whatever the **** it wants with aboriginal land and there are enough members of the public who will support them.
Last edited by Corduroy; Jun 26th, 2014 at 09:50 AM..
 
Cliffy
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Seller's remorse?

They sold it HBC who sold it to Canada.

Dumbasses.

You be the dumbazz. You don't know Jack about the history of BC.
 
petros
#11
There are no treaties because they sold their land to HBC.
 
Twila
+1
#12
It was not abandoned land and it was not sold. Natives were allowed to live if they moved to reservations. If they were found off the reservation without written permission they were shot or jailed. A internment camp of sorts.

Today, most of BC remains unceded sovereign Native lands, over which neither the Canadian or BC governments have the legal or moral authority to govern.
 
Corduroy
+1
#13
Yeah, that's weird 'abandoned land'? They're still here.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+2
#14
So does the ownership of Vancouver mean that the natives are responsible for its upkeep and infastructure repairs much like a landlord?
 
petros
+1
#15
Read up on Pelly & Grey negotiating sales of the land. As for forced to stay on the Rez is malarky. They were HBC contractors.

Can't hunt and trap on the Rez to keep the HBC furs rolling in. This is why they can hunt, fish and trap BC wide in or out of season without a license.

They have no issues sticking to that part of the HBC treaties and land sales.
 
Twila
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

So does the ownership of Vancouver mean that the natives are responsible for its upkeep and infastructure repairs much like a landlord?

No, it means they get a say in how resources on that land are used.
 
petros
#17
Nobody in Canada has land ownership. You buy the usage rights.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by TwilaView Post

No, it means they get a say in how resources on that land are used.

So they have all the rights but none of the responsibility?
 
Twila
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Read up on Pelly & Grey negotiating sales of the land. As for forced to stay on the Rez is malarky. They were HBC contractors.

www.sfu.ca/~palys/prospect.htm (external - login to view)
The federal government was both relentless and imaginative in the means it employed to assimilate the Indian. The very definition of who was "an Indian", and hence, who also was not, was one of the elements put under government control in the first Indian Act. It is noteworthy that the continuation of Indian status was defined on the father's side: aboriginal men who married non-aboriginal women remained Indian, while aboriginal women who married non-aboriginal men lost their Indian status, as did their children. This reflected European patriarchy, and also established lineages which conflicted with the matrilineal descent practised by many First Nations (e.g., see Joseph, 1991; Wilson, 1985).

The history of Indian administration in Canada from that point onward, is one of increasing control by government authorities over natives. A partial list includes: (a) attempts to suppress "pagan rituals" and promote Christian religions by banning important cultural festivals such as the Potlatch, Thirst Dance, and Sun Dance; (b) efforts to suppress traditional native structures of self-government, and to teach the elements of English-style "good government", through imposition of elected "band councils"; (c) diminishing the influence of natural parents and heightening the in loco parentis role of the Christian churches by requiring children to leave their parents and attend government-sponsored residential schools where use of Indian languages and other aspects of "Indian-ness" were punished; (d) controlling aboriginals' efforts to organize and pursue aboriginal rights by initiating a "pass" system where Indians could not leave their reserve without permission of the Indian Agent, and making it illegal to hire a lawyer to pursue any form of aboriginal rights or land claim; and (e) undermining aboriginal justice structures by giving paramountcy to the Indian Act and other federal and provincial law (e.g., see Cole & Chaikin, 1990; Dyck, 1991; Francis, 1992; Mathias & Yabsley, 1991; Tennant, 1985; Wilson, 1985).

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiingView Post

So they have all the rights but none of the responsibility?

What do you mean by responsiblity? Responsiblity for ensuring the resources are used appropriately? Or are you wanting them to pay?
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by TwilaView Post

What do you mean by responsiblity? Responsiblity for ensuring the resources are used appropriately? Or are you wanting them to pay?

Owning land carries obligations and responsibilities. Are they not going to assume those responsibilities? Or are they not assuming ownership? If not, I am unclear what they are actually claiming.
 
lone wolf
+1
#21
Nobody owns land. It was here before man and it will be here after man - sorta like fleas claiming ownership of the dog
 
Twila
+1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Nobody owns land. It was here before man and it will be here after man - sorta like fleas claiming ownership of the dog

the gov't owns the money that can pay the lawyers to work the law to it's own benefit and thereby control the land.

This would appear to be about control.
 
petros
#23
Quote:

The very definition of who was "an Indian"

which is a native that lived 100% off the land without a job with HBC.

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Nobody owns land. It was here before man and it will be here after man - sorta like fleas claiming ownership of the dog

There is no private property in Canada.
 
lone wolf
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post


There is no private property in Canada.

Unfortunately, that argument doesn't hold up when you're fishing off the Government dock in a navigable waterway and the KOA security guy calls in police re: trespassing. Even right-of-way doesn't phase them
 
petros
#25
Was it posted?
 
Zipperfish
+1
#26
In realted news:

Tsilhqot'in First Nation granted B.C. title claim in Supreme Court ruling - Politics - CBC News

Quote:


The Supreme Court of Canada has granted declaration of aboriginal title to
more than 1,700 square kilometres of land in British Columbia to the Tsilhqot'in
First Nation, the first time the court has made such a ruling regarding
aboriginal land.

 
captain morgan
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by TwilaView Post

It was not abandoned land and it was not sold. Natives were allowed to live if they moved to reservations. If they were found off the reservation without written permission they were shot or jailed. A internment camp of sorts.

Today, most of BC remains unceded sovereign Native lands, over which neither the Canadian or BC governments have the legal or moral authority to govern.

Who did the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh displace way back in the day?

If you're going to point to 'oral tradition' as the means of assessing 'ownership', I'm sure that between Petros and I, we can also claim some form of ownership as per my (or his) present day oral traditions

That work for you?
 
Twila
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Who did the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh displace way back in the day?

If there were others displaced by Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh, then they should come forward.
 
Cliffy
#29
Ha! Eat that Captain and Petros. You are arguing against your own laws. I would only be satisfied if the ruling stated that Canadian law didn't apply to unceded land but this is the next best thing. 8 - 0 riling by the Supreme Court of Canada is pretty binding I think.I can see harpo and his thugs trying to rewrite the laws now.
 
captain morgan
#30
Changes nothing Cliffy.... The Feds can still play the 'National Interest' card on this project.
 
no new posts